Trader Joe’s, the well-known grocery chain, is now facing a lawsuit from some customers who allege that their coffee doesn’t contain the expected amount of caffeine.
This lawsuit, lodged on Thursday in California’s Central District, argues that the French roast low-acid coffee offered by Trader Joe’s has less than half the caffeine typically found in standard coffee blends.
The customers assert that although many coffee brands don’t disclose their caffeine levels, some do provide labels like “decaf” or “half-caf” to indicate reduced caffeine content.
According to these customers, they thought they were purchasing fully caffeinated coffee, but after testing it, they found otherwise.
“This is a significant misrepresentation. It’s become somewhat clichéd that coffee drinkers depend on caffeine for the energy needed to navigate their day,” the lawsuit states.
The complaint continues by suggesting that the amount of caffeine in coffee impacts consumers’ buying choices. For those who are regular drinkers, options like “decaf” or “half-caf” just aren’t reasonable substitutes.
Regular coffee typically contains between 85 to 120 milligrams of caffeine per 8-ounce cup, influenced by how it’s roasted and brewed. In comparison, decaf coffee holds just 2 to 5 mg per cup, while “half-caf” blends contain about 40 to 60 mg.
The lawsuit points out that Trader Joe’s French Roast Low Acid Coffee should actually be categorized as “half-caf,” as tests revealed it has 51% of the caffeine found in their Dark French Roast Coffee.
Furthermore, this low-acid coffee was found to contain even less caffeine than many other brands marketed as “half-caf,” including being 17.8% lower than Folgers’ and 24.5% less than Puroast’s offerings.
The complaint alleges that Trader Joe’s has consistently misrepresented its coffee, engaging in what it describes as “false and deceptive advertising,” which it claims constitutes unfair business practices that harm consumers and allow for overpricing.
The plaintiffs are not only seeking to halt Trader Joe’s from continuing this alleged unlawful marketing, but they are also pursuing unspecified damages due to these deceptive practices. They aim to have class action status in California, Illinois, and New York, regions where the product is mainly sold.
